Posted
by
CmdrTaco
on Thursday April 08, 2010 @10:46AM
from the we-call-that-flip-flopping dept.

kai_hiwatari writes "Sometime back Canonical decided to change the default search in Firefox that comes Ubuntu 10.04 to Yahoo! from Google. In a surprising turn-around, Canonical have decided to a ditch Yahoo! for Google. Rick Spencer from Canonical announced that Google will now be the default Firefox search in Ubuntu 10.04, not Yahoo! as was previously decided."

Exactly. Why is this news? Canonical calculated that they get better commissions from Google than Yahoo at this point. It leads me to believe that Google increased their payout for Canonical and they switched back from Yahoo.

Alternatively, they could have realized that the PR hit they would take with geek & power user audience from going with Yahoo would cost them more than any direct revenue they'd get from that. And they do need geeks to do evangelizing, and to some extent tech support (forums etc) for them.

To attempt to turn Yahoo down and go with a worse offer from Google? Surely Yahoo will never look at them again and Google will have cut their offer from the original that was considered not good enough. I can't really see your interpretation being right.

Click on the first link in TFA, read approximately 1.5 lines of text and you have your answer.

It doesn't cost you anything to elaborate:

"Canonical, the company behind the popular Ubuntu Linux distribution, revealed today that it has established a revenue sharing agreement with Yahoo. As part of the deal, the Firefox Web browser that is shipped in Ubuntu will be configured to use Yahoo as the default search engine . . . "

The first time Firefox is started up, it should display several popular search engines in a random order, and then let the user select the one to use as a default.

Or you could just let people find out for themselves. After all, if they've never heard of Google, let alone any of the other search engines, then they probably have little business being on the net. In my case, I don't bother with FF's search box at all. I just use a local homepage with a simple table of links for a whole bunch of my most-freq

Canonical is a for-profit business that builds a seriously kick-ass distro of Linux, and they put a lot of work into doing so, and they give it to you for free. They even let other smart people use their hard work to build derivatives like Mint.

If they can make a few sheckles from setting the default search engine in their distro, when anyone with opposable thumbs and an IQ over 50 can click on the search engine logo and choose another one, why should they be going to the trouble of programming a random-order list?

If they took away the choice list, or blocked all search engines but their "preferred" one, OK, I could see an objection. If choosing a new search engine was as hard as downloading and installing a browser, I could see an objection. But this is literally a two-mouseclick choice. Other than the "in random order" part, Ubuntu already provides exactly what you propose.

The first time Firefox is started up, it should display several popular search engines in a random order, and then let the user select the one to use as a default.

It's very much like the approach that Microsoft has been forced to use in Europe, to allow the user to select the default web browser (rather than just defaulting to IE).

Seriously Ballmer, wtf? If you go aaaaall the way up to the search bar and type on the little triangle arrow thingie next to the Google search box you get a drop down menu with several other engines. There, I have magnanimously given you what evil Mozilla corporation had wrongly denied you all this years. No, don't thank me, its a comunity service.

Unfortunately, apparently nobody outside of Canonical actually knows why they switched back. Wasn't it that Yahoo! offered them money? Then the only conclusion I can come to is that Google outbid them.

Fortunately one Canonical employee is prepared to share what they know with us: from TFA:Rick Spencer, who announced the change back to Google, said that Canonical have decided to change back to Google after deciding that Google Search will be more familiar to a lot of users upgrading to Ubuntu 10.04...

Of course, you may choose not to believe that. But Canonical are providing an explanation.

Fortunately one Canonical employee is prepared to share what they know with us: from TFA:Rick Spencer, who announced the change back to Google, said that Canonical have decided to change back to Google after deciding that Google Search will be more familiar to a lot of users upgrading to Ubuntu 10.04...

Of course, you may choose not to believe that. But Canonical are providing an explanation.

If "familiarity" was the issue, then why move the fsck'ing window buttons to the upper left? I don't buy that as an argument.

If "familiarity" was the issue, then why move the fsck'ing window buttons to the upper left? I don't buy that as an argument.

Heh. Hey, if we copy off the Mac and make it look like a Mac, but, you know, don't go the whole hog and clone the whole Mac UI, because that would be, you know, silly, then maybe something......will happen? Clearly, they've got bitten by the bug that if they clone Mac OS X then that will solve all of their problems. Also, why bother to change the search to Yahoo if familiarity was ev

The window buttons on the top left is nothing new...AmigaOS had the close button on the top left, as has MacOS (and still does)..Windows 3.1 also had the the menu (providing the close option) in the top left...Unix window managers like SGI 4DWm were similar... I have a feeling CDE did the same too.

Ubuntu also offer an easy way to change back to the old behavior, something microsoft never offered when they changed the interface radically for windows 95..

I think the fact is that Gnome has *always* had buttons on the right, despite any other desktop environments/window managers/operating systems. And Ubuntu has always standardized on Gnome. Why screw with it?? You're just upsetting users.

to be fair, even Windows has the exit button on the top left, you just have to double-click on it to make it work (which, in itself could be considered a good safety feature from accidentally single-clicking.)(Unfortunately single-clicking has a bug that makes it display some lines of text)

If "familiarity" was the issue, then why move the fsck'ing window buttons to the upper left? I don't buy that as an argument.

Thankfully Ubuntu seem to have garnished a clue in respect to the position of the close button. Some themes put it in the left hand corner, some in the right and people have a choice to pick what they like. Most importantly the close button is always in the corner and not not shoved over by the absence or not of maximize & minimize buttons.

The window button movement has been justified as a mouse movement reducer - when the clickable elements of the menu bar are on the left and the window buttons are on the right, you have to move the mouse further to go from one to the other. Personally, I barely ever touch my mouse so it doesn't really concern me either way, but I can respect that decision as a genuine attempt to reduce the user's wasted interface time.

It could have been feedback from Ubuntu fans. I missed the switch to Yahoo - but if I had seen it, I would have weighed in with my disapproval. I haven't used Yahoo more than a few times in my life, for a reason. There is nothing I need, want, or like on Yahoo.

Really it's a non-issue. A couple of clicks and you're using the search engine of your choice anyways. I downloaded the ubuntu 10.4 beta the other day just to play with, and was mildly surprised that Yahoo came up as the default search engine. I spent all of 5 seconds thinking it must be some financial/political thing that I hadn't heard about, then changed it to Google. Most people savvy enough to use Linux can figure out how to change the settings in Firefox to what they want. People that don't know

I stopped using Yahoo when signing up for a mail account meant you were distributed to spammer lists before you could opt out via the options screen. I remember around early 2001 or so, when signing up a friend for an account, went to the options to opt out of the marketing emails, but already had spam in the Inbox. I finally got around to converting everything to an address on my own domain and mail server, haven't looked back since.

It took some time for the corporate gears to grind the information "Free software picks a Bing-based competitor instead of us... we must be doing something wrong. They made the switch for money. How much were we paying them again?"

True enough... But isn't the goal of Ubuntu to be a GNU/Linux distro for everyone? That may not be the *reality*, but Ubuntu is an example of a project where of where we should try to avoid "anyone who's knowledgeable enough to..." kinds of arguments.

Considering the distribution we're talking about (it's not Gentoo), you just said the equivalent of "If you're running a desktop personal computer, I suspect you have the necessary knowledge and skills..."

Although, on the other hand, the switch to Yahoo gives just about the same user experience as Google for the average user. You type a search query, it gives you results, in the same green and blue colors, even.

I doubt many average users would even care to change, but if they did, the UI to change it to Google is right there out in front, and only takes a single click.

Definitely not like the moving of the window controls, which does in fact change th

Yeah.. I used to be very used to top left clicking for closing from Amiga Workbench and Mac OS.. took a while to adjust to using the other side.. good thing you can close most windows with control w and usually whole apps with ctrl-q anyway.. though I don't know the shortcuts to switch in and out of maximised window views in Ubuntu, but if you're doing those things you're likely going to be using the mouse for moving the window around anyway.

I disagree. I set up computers for people that have had no or little previous exposure to computers, and I set them up with Linux because it's easier for them to learn. Though I'm now moving to Debian, some of my first victims -- I meant users -- were first exposed to default Ubuntu and Xubuntu installs. You know what? They were able to email, browse the web, and play games with very little help from me.

For something like changing the default search engine, they would give me a call and I'd ssh/vnc into the

Didn't know those shortcuts either, thanks. Ctrl-l works in Chrome too, and it doesn't need a separate search menu as the address bar doubles as the menu.. actually I do use keyboard shortcuts all the time for opening and closing tabs anyway, and when you open a new tab the address bar is autofocused so perhaps knowing this shortcut is a little pointless anyway.

Common sense ought to be sufficient. If "familiarity" was such an overriding concern then the change wouldn't have been made in the first place. If it suddenly became a concern, then they could easily have told people how to change the default search engine with a couple clicks.

The only explanation that adds up is that Yahoo offered more than Google, then Google offered more than Yahoo, and part of the new Google deal was that they wouldn't publicly discuss the details of the deal.

Certainly sufficient for questions to be raised. But given Canonical's generally decent track record with openness, I'm not ready to assume any nefarious, secretive dealings. For example, they did mention the revenue-sharing deal with Yahoo.

All I'm saying is that we shouldn't merely assume that Canonical is hiding something here. But we probably should ask them about it.

Such a cynical and presumptive point of view, unless you have evidence. What do you have to back up your claim?

Why would he need that? Canonical dug a hole by agreeing a revenue sharing deal with Yahoo. At a time when, by all accounts, they need to start raking in come cash you don't exactly need to be Mr. Cynicism to question that they are now dumping said revenue because of 'user familiarity'. As Mark Shuttleworth has already said, Ubuntu and Canonical are not democracies.

As Mark Shuttleworth has already said, Ubuntu and Canonical are not democracies.

I'm so sick of this "Oh, Marky-mark said they're not a democracy" stuff. Seriously. Don't you think that people know that? What's important is that Ubuntu is open source. Now I'm not trying to say that every open source project should stick true to non-open source license practices, but it kind of goes hand in hand in most situations, and I feel that the community has grown accustomed to the general morals and ethics that most p

I'm so sick of this "Oh, Marky-mark said they're not a democracy" stuff. Seriously. Don't you think that people know that? What's important is that Ubuntu is open source.

This has got nothing to do with whether Ubuntu is open source or not. Canonical gets hard revenue from the search engine that they ship as a default in Ubuntu, and where those decisions are concerned Canonical is not going to look at things for the 'good of users' as is being claimed here. That's exactly what Mark Shuttleworth meant.

Well, you realize that Google is the default in the upstream (non-ubuntu branded) firefox browser because they contribute 90% of the Mozilla Foundation's revenue, right? [1] Clearly, Google sees a lot of value in partnerships like this. I don't think anybody would argue that Yahoo!'s spending power is greater than Google's. So, if Google sees value in something, they have the money to take it. It's not cynical, it's a business reality.

If you're geek enough to be running a Linux distro in the first place, chances are you've always eyed the default settings -- particularly on something as critical as search -- very carefully, and made your adjustments promptly after your install. Ubuntu-using Google fans have no doubt been changing their default back to Google regularly, just as the Yahoo fans will now change their defaults.

Stuff like this erodes my faith in humanity. No, not that companies make these little placement deals. It's that these little placement deals actually matter because the overwhelming majority of users are too dumb or apathetic to figure out that the search engines and their ordering are easily configurable -- using a handy, point-and-drool GUI interface, no less.

I can't say I didn't see it coming. Around 1996, when I had AOL users complaining that the articles on my website were "cut off at the bottom of the screen", and I had to explain scrollbars to them, I should have found another career, preferably one that involved frequent use of explosives and heavy earthmoving equipment.

If people only choose from the top 10 or so results from any search engine, and they make fairly generic searches, search engine choice shouldn't matter to much. For popular things, they all return approximately the same thing (in my experience, not in the same order, but they're mostly all there on the front page). People who are persnickety and make special searches a lot likely have a favored engine and will change the settings to match their needs. Most people want to configure their computer to do t

Did you see it coming enough to make a couple of good stock calls? In hindsight it would have only taken about 4:Buy MS in 1994 just before Win95.Buy Yahoo and Google in 1995.Buy Apple around 1999.Sell Yahoo in 2001 just before the crash.Sell MS around 2002 just after Win XPSell Apple = pending TBD.

I use the 10.04 beta, and did when it used Yahoo as the default as well. Canonical actually made it so if you changed your default search engine in the search box on the upper right, it would actually change the home page back to a Google search rather than a Yahoo one as well.

I'm quite sure both of these are simply escalating revenue sharing deals, but nobody can make the argument that Canonical was trying to force us over to Yahoo.

Around 1996, when I had AOL users complaining that the articles on my website were "cut off at the bottom of the screen", and I had to explain scrollbars to them, I should have found another career, preferably one that involved frequent use of explosives and heavy earthmoving equipment.

I recommend that at install time, the user is presented with a window containing randomly ordered buttons for 6 of the top web search engines on the market today. By selecting one of the buttons, the user makes that search engine the default. This should keep everything fair and everyone happy.

Maybe I'm the only one, but I never use the search box. I just have Google as my home page, so I'm just a new tab away from my preferred search anyways. And with Chrome I don't even need to wait for the page to load now.

My home page is about:blank. If I need a new tab for something else than a search, I don't want to wait for Google to load, fight with the stop button and risk my absolutely hated: paste URL into the URL bar and have it replaced by Firefox upon finishing loading of the current page.

Do note that the Yahoo change was going to effect Firefox users. Konqueror, Arora and all other browsers users were not affected in the first place.Also, if you upgraded from 9.10 to 10.04 and were using Google back in 9.10, Google stayed as your default search engine.

I think the real reason why Ubuntu went back to Google is because Google has too much branding over the idea of searching the web. Nobody says "just Yahoo! that". Shockingly enough, there are people who are new to the web and do not even know what Yahoo! is but has heard of Google. Remember, Canonical true goal is Linux on the desktop for everybody; even users who are new to computers.

Has anyone else notice that google's search is actually starting to become a bit spammed out? I love most of big G's services, but searching seems to have become somewhat of an abysmal exercise of hunt-and-dig through sites that are massively spamming for key-words. I'm not talking about those like experts-exchange either, but rather the thousands of throwaway-domains that pop up in the top search results (especially for less common searches, like programming stuff), yet other than spammed keywords, have NO